Interesting things I learned at “public” meetings:

It became very obvious that the reason that I could not get a clear idea of exactly what it is that council and city staff are proposing we build for facilities is because council and city staff have NO CLEAR IDEA of what exactly it is they will build. The know the types of facilities (entertainment center, recreation complex and art gallery/museum), they have a wish lists of what they want in those facilities (eg. Basketball court, ice surface) and they have a price they propose to pay. But as to what exactly the city will get for spending all that money – they have no idea.

They will tell you that this is because it makes no sense to spend money to come up with any kind of actual plans or hard numbers because it would be wasted if the plan was turned down. They would rather spend those dollars on a high pressure sales campaign than developing actual ideas and plans they could present to the public so they had layouts and numbers of a real nature for the public. They would appear to be so lacking in vision and leadership that vague generalities and snake-oil salesmanship is their way of operating on this and many other pressing issues facing Abbotsford.

In a nutshell they planning/proposing to put out their building types, wish lists and the price they will pay in what is referred to as design/build. They seek offers to build a facility at that price. The company then designs and builds the building. You know what it is you paid for and are getting when they are finished. You better hope their vision of the wish list and what a, say, entertainment complex looks like are reasonable close to what you thought you were getting/wanted/needed.

As I said lacking vision and leadership. If you believe that the City needs facilities you make that part of your platform at election time. You do not avoid this subject to get elected, so that you can then use access to taxpayer money, city staff and facilities to steamroll vague promises and proposals over any opposition by denying their rights of free speech and answers to questions and fool the public into thinking they have a good idea of what the final shape of these facilities will be, when nobody knows or has a good idea what the final structure will be.

You present your vision, your reasoning and your plans in the public forum and more level playing field of a municipal election. You design the facilities, hiring reputable engineers and architects; you come up with business plans, projected income or losses at which point you present this information to the citizens. Then you listen to them. The concerns are addressed or you explain why you are not going to address a particular point. Listening is the key, they have a right to be heard, to present their views and above all they have a right to access city facilities in presenting their views to their fellow citizens.
City Staff and Council are so use to ignoring citizens that even at a session they claimed was for public questions to be answered they repeatedly gave answers that did not answer the question asked by a citizen/taxpayer. Which may help to explain their time limit on questions – it provides an excuse to avoid those pesky follow up questions if the citizen tries to insist the City answer the actual question posed. Especially when the moderator is one of the city staff selling these mirages to the public.

They have no interest in explaining why the management fees paid to Global Spectrum to manage the facility are apparently not considered an expense by the city since in answering questions about operating costs, they failed to include fees paid to Global Spectrum in the entertainment facility costs. But then they also chose to ignore maintenance and upkeep costs for the facility. Perhaps they plan on using they profits they choose to imagine for the complex to pay fees, maintenance and upkeep. Which raises the question: if big profits are such a sure-fire guarantee, why is it that Global Spectrum wants a management fee? Should they, since the company speaks so blithely about big profits be rewarded via a profit sharing plan? If they are promising profits and the city is depending on a profit, should not Global Spectrum have the incentive of being compensated out of any profits, profits net of all operating and maintenance costs? Should Global Spectrum, based on their promises and assurances of profit share with the city’s taxpayers the risk that there will in fact be no profits?

It was fascinating to learn that Councilor Beck, through words out of his own mouth, sees no difference between an Abbotsford citizen and taxpayer who questions the wisdom of proceeding with such vague plans for unneeded facilities while needed facilities go un-built – and an American company wanting to build SE2 and pollute our air-shed. Personally I have no idea what this comparison was meant to mean, you will have to ask Councilor Beck. I suppose this insult should have come as no surprise in light of the distain and disregard the council and city staff has shown for anyone who would dare question their infallibility.

I was amazed to learn that the city has a fairy godmother? Leprechaun? whom magically fills and refills the reserve fund. How else is it that taking money out of the reserve fund is not spending taxpayers money – at least according to city staff and council. After all, when asked if the cost of the land should not be included in the proposed entertainment complex the question was told “No, it came out of the reserve fund” and thus was not an expense. Which begs the questions: Where exactly does this money come from if not from the taxpayers?; If it does come from taxpayers, does that not mean that buying the land was an expense paid out by taxpayers? And just how bad is the city staff’s and council’s grasp on basic financial principals that they see money in and out of the reserve as magical not revenue/expense in nature?

It is clear that what staff and council have is labels such as “entertainment complex” and wish lists but no definitive plans for the proposed facility. So what it comes down to is handing them a blank cheque for $85 million and hoping/praying. I was talking to a non-senior (pity!) staff member who was willing to listen and discuss ideas, questions and Reality about Plan A. S/he was correct what the city’s Plan A boils down to is blind faith. I just cannot support turning all that money over to a group I would not trust to build an outhouse. So I must vote NO.

Entire Process Tainted by Conflict of Interest

At the UCFV Plan A meeting it was very clear that Councilor John Smith, with his ties to UCFV, badly wants University status for UCFV and believes (as do many) that the entertainment complex is necessary part of UCFV’s bid for University status. The problem? As a city councilor Mr. Councilor Smith is in a position to have exerted undue influence on the entire process, from the “surveys” and “consultations” to the current slick high-pressure sales campaign.

Slanted survey questions and design; selected groups and persons to “consult”; influence and/or pressure to ensure the entertainment complex was chosen to build; a backroom deal to obtain the land from its owner; reasons found to build next to UCFV and nowhere else; pressure and promises to elicit support and backing.

Did all of this happen, some of this or none of this? We will never know, but we do know Councilor Smith was part of the process from beginning to end.

Ethical behaviour demands that someone with such a powerful Conflict of Interest, a position of influence and multiple opportunities to exert undue influence on the process and outcome declare that they are in a position of great conflict of interest, and then place wide distance between themselves and every aspect of the process use in arriving at the recommended projects.

They most certainly should not be acting as both booster of UCFV’s bid for University status, as one of the architects of Plan A and one of the slick, taxpayer funded, high-pressure salesmen for the very project(s) at the core of this Conflict of Interest.

Councilor Smith’s actions upon being in both a Conflict of Interest and a position to exert undue influence jeopardizes not only UCFV’s application for University status, but taints the entire Plan A process. The only way to cauterize this grievous wound to Abbotsford’s integrity is to start again at the beginning and carry out the entire process in a fully public and transparent way OR with a resounding and overwhelming NO vote on November 25, 2006.

The unbearable kitschness of Christmas

THE CATHOLIC LEAGUE of America was up in arms in 2002 about an exhibition in Napa, California, which included the “caganer”, a traditional Catalan figurine who is placed squatting in the corner of the Christmas crib, trousers around his ankles.

Perhaps predictably, the Catholic League was offended by the presence of a defecating peasant in the holy stable. What it didn’t appreciate, however, is that the Christmas story is supposed to be offensive, and that the caganer is a reminder of the theological revolution that scandalized sophisticated opinion of the first few centuries of the Christian era: that God became human, that the sacred was no longer to be protected from the profane.

In his great masterpiece, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Czech novelist Milan Kundera develops an innovative moral vocabulary around the notion of kitsch. Kitsch, he argues, isn’t primarily about bad taste or the vulgarities of popular devotional images: kitsch is “the absolute denial of shit”. Kitsch is that vision of the world in which nothing unwholesome or indecent is allowed to come into view. It’s the aesthetics of wanting to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony. Kitsch excludes shit in order to paint a picture of perfection, a world of purity and moral decency.

THE PROBLEM WITH KITSCH is not readily apparent because (by definition) the treatment of what is considered unwholesome takes place off stage. Think of those Nazi propaganda films of beautiful, healthy children skiing down the Bavarian Alps. Nothing wrong with that, is there? Of course there is. For this is a world that has been purified, where everything nasty or troubling has been eliminated. The logical conclusion of kitsch, argues Kundera, is the ghetto and the concentration camp – the means by which totalitarian regimes dispose of their shit, variously construed.

Opening the infamous exhibition of degenerate art in the summer of 1937, Hitler gave notice that “from now on in we will wage a war of purification against the last elements of putrefaction in our culture”. Kitsch turns out to be motivation to cleanse the world of pollution. It is the aesthetics of ethnic cleansing.

Kundera himself thinks theology to be the ultimate source of kitsch. He recounts how as a child an aimless thought experiment led him from God having a mouth to God having intestines – the implications of which struck the young Kundera as sacrilegious. This instant and visceral reaction against the association of the divine with the messiness of the human helps us appreciate something of the hostility of many early thinkers to the idea of the incarnation. God and the messiness of the world must be kept at the maximum possible distance. But what then of God become human? What of the word become flesh?

Even many who felt the attraction of the Christian story believed this was going too far. Convoluted ways were sought to mitigate the offence. Christ was not really human or Christ was not really divine. Others created a firewall between the sacred and the profane within the person of Jesus himself. For the second century Gnostic, Valentinius, Jesus “ate and drank but did not defecate”.

The Jesus of Valentinius is thus the kitsch Jesus. And it’s this same kitsch Jesus of sentimental benevolence that features in countless Christmas cards and community carol services. The baby in the manger now presides over a celebration of feel-good bonhomie that makes the true meaning of Christmas almost impossible to articulate. Boozed-up partygoers and proud grandparents demand the unreality of “O little town of Bethlehem, how still we see thee lie”. Elsewhere Kundera writes of kitsch as “the need to gaze into the mirror and be moved to tears of gratification at one’s own reflection”. And it’s this gratifying reflection that many want to see when they gaze into the Christmas crib. Christmas has become unbearably self-satisfied.

THE CAGANER IS A REMINDER of another Jesus and another story. From the perspective of official Christian doctrine, the story of Christmas is a full-scale attack upon the notion of kitsch. Valentinius’s theology is declared heretical precisely because it denies the full reality of the incarnation. For Valentinius, Jesus only seemed human. “Veiled in flesh the Godhead see”, as the equally heretical carol puts it. Orthodoxy turns out to be vastly more radical, not because it provides a way of squaring the circle of a God-man, but because it refuses to separate the divine from material reality. God is born in a stable. The divine is re-imagined, not as existing in some pristine isolation, but among the shittiness of the world.

The temptation to disassociate the divine from material reality marks the beginnings of kitsch. For, once unhitched from the divine, the complexity of the world can be too easily by-passed and ignored. The orthodox formulation of the incarnation allows no way of avoiding politics, food, sex or money. Nor, as the Christian story of God goes on to make horribly clear, does it offer a way of avoiding suffering and death.

The problem isn’t that Christmas has become too materialistic – but rather that it isn’t materialistic enough. Kitsch Christmas is another way of uncoupling the divine from the material, thus spiritualizing God into incapacity. I am not being a killjoy attacking the kitsch version of Christmas. Three years ago, my wife gave birth to a baby boy. The labour ward was no place to be coy about the human body and all its functions. The talcum-powdered unreality of kitsch childbirth cannot compare with the exhaustion, pain and joy of the real thing.

But perhaps the most important corruption of Christmas kitsch is how it shapes our understanding of peace. This is the season where the word “peace” is ubiquitous. Written out in fancy calligraphy everywhere, “peace and good will to all” is the subscript of the season. It’s the peace of the sleeping child, peace as in “peace and quiet”, peace as a certain sort of mood. But this is not what they need in Bethlehem today. They need peace as in people not killing each other.

This sort of peace requires a stubborn engagement with the brute facts of oppression and violence – which is the very reality that the kitsch peace of Christmas wants to take us on holiday away from. How ironic: we don’t want the shittiness of the world pushed at us during this season of peace. This, then, is the debilitating consequence of kitsch. Kitsch peace is the unspoken desire that war takes place out of sight and mind – it’s the absolute denial of shit. Political leaders who are preparing for yet more fighting will be happy to oblige. Christmas has become a cultural danger to us all, not just a danger to orthodox Christianity.

Rev. Dr Giles Fraser is the vicar of Putney and lecturer in philosophy at Wadham College, Oxford. This article was first published on Ship of Fools in 2002.